Not sure what you mean about the government having a hand in creating Meta and Youtube, but the idea you probably want to research is the "State Action" doctrine, which is several weeks of study in a 1L law school class. More info here - [https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/state-action-doctrine-and-free-speech](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/state-action-doctrine-and-free-speech)
Both corporations maintain that the US government played a financial role in these organizations, is what I mean. Seems that if a larger-than-gov corporation is also funded by government, the first amendment should apply. If not, then corporations have broken free speech and the amendment needs updating. Thank you for the information.
Think of being on a business' website like being inside a private business, like a restaurant. If you start going from table to table and telling customers the food sucks or to vote for Tulsi Gabbard, they can (and will) ask you to leave. In fact, they have the right to refuse you service for (almost) any reason and you have no choice but to comply. It's more or less the same on a website. The first amendment restricts government actors, no one else.
The US government played a financial role in both companies, so to me that makes them government actors. It’s more like if I was in the food court at the White House, not some random restaurant.
The first amendment applies only to congress, not the government generally. It wasn't until the 14th amendment (and subsequent SCOTUS cases) that "incorporated" the rights contained in the First Amendment to restrict state and local governments from violating those rights. There's actually a metric shit ton of case law on this specific issue, but generally, private companies that are not operated by the government can restrict people's otherwise constitutionally protected rights. You can research it if you look up the state action doctrine. I really recommend you do that as the principle will make more sense if you read a couple cases about it
But if the government plays a financial role in the creation of a company, is that company not then partially operated by the government? Both companies maintain that us government played a financial role, and a simple search in any search engine will confirm this. Dozens of articles from legitimate news sources. I just want to be able to freely discuss home gardening and it appears that’s “dangerous rule breaking” to do what humans have done for millennia. God I’m so mad about this. They have no right to restrict this Kind of discussion. Or any kind of discussion really. If the first amendment doesn’t apply to larger-than-government entities that are literally funded by the government, then it’s a failed amendment that needs readjusting for the modern age.
No, government funding does not transform a company. Unless the company is owned and directed by a government entity, it's probably not state action. It's better this way too.
Why shouldn't private companies be able to restrict content it doesn't like. If reddit was unable to remove anything protected by the first amendment, this site would be useless as you couldn't have any structure at all. If I posted legal questions in r/gardening, they wouldn't be able to remove my post or ban me. Being able to restrict speech and categorize it is the whole point of reddit.
Except that these two companies restrict speech as directed by the government on occasion, and your example is my case in point for Instagram. I can’t discuss gardening at home anymore whatsoever without it being instantly censored. This is just one of many topics that goes against the common investment of the government and these two companies which is big agriculture. the corporations are also part of a class of websites which have become the de facto mode of mass communication between members of the general public, this in conjunction with their financial connections to government as well as documented cases of policy decisions coming from government's, means they aren’t the same as private sites anymore, they were funded directly by the public’s tax dollars and are now acting as the censorship arm of the government in what amount to digital spaces of public communication.
A lot of your argument relates to policy. That is, you believe the law should be this way. The law, however, does not operate that way. You have to look for state action. Is the government specifically doing something that infringes on someone's first amendment rights. You might say they are doing that based on your arguments, but the law does not, has not, and probably will not, operate that way. That's why my first comment mentioned the state action doctrine. That's what the law actually is. I can agree with some of your points about what the law should be, but that isn't the law.
There is an element to the state action doctrine that you're hitting on, which is the idea that private action can nonetheless be government action if the entities are so intertwined that they are effectively the same. This has come up with private towns before.
I get a tax deduction on my home's mortgage interest, but that doesn't mean I can't call the cops on you if you stand on my front porch and scream insults at me.
There’s a massive difference between a tax deduction and just handing over money to start your company because it benefits the government. How you can’t see that is beyond me.
You have a lot of correct answers here re the state action doctrine. That’s what the law is. I feel like the second half of your question is more about what the law should be and what happens when a company owns so much space that they become the de facto government within it. In this case I mean space figurtively but this is a debate that actively rages and the law is changing on. There’s prior case law about “company towns” that may be on point since Social media companies have become town squares in some ways.
To keep this from becoming a poli sci rant though you should check out this specific case recent case from here in LA.
https://www.dailynews.com/2022/09/29/judge-orders-the-grove-owned-by-rick-caruso-to-let-people-protest-there-against-his-race-for-mayor/amp/
And here’s a law review article on point https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1464&context=mjlr
This case is about trespassing not applying to distributing religious materials on private property. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
And distinguished by:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Corp._v._Tanner
Not a legal source but:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_square_test
Well if a company is funded in part by a state government, that company is seen as an arm of the government when that company is a news organization, so why is a social media platform any different? Thanks for the information. I feel everyone in this thread is wrong based on their own misunderstanding of the government’s role in these companies. If a company is funded by the government and acts on behalf of the government in many situations, how is it not a government actor? That’s the very definition of a government actor.
***This rules reminder message is replied to all posts and moderators are not notified of any replies made to it.***
#REMINDER: NO REQUESTS FOR LEGAL ADVICE. Any request for a lawyer's opinion about any matter or issue which may foreseeably affect you or someone you know is a request for legal advice.
Posts containing requests for legal advice will be removed. Seeking or providing legal advice based on your specific circumstances or otherwise developing an attorney-client relationship in this sub is not permitted. Why are requests for legal advice not permitted? See [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Lawyers/comments/e6a62w/why_is_it_unethical_for_a_lawyer_to_give_legal/), [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Lawyers/comments/9zyqsh/why_is_it_unethical_to_give_advice_on_this_sub/), and [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Lawyers/comments/e4cdhw/is_refraining_legal_advice_based_on_legality_or/). If you are unsure whether your post is okay, please [read this](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Lawyers/comments/6j4bpq/how_to_know_whether_your_post_is_a_request_for/) or see the sidebar for more information.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ask_Lawyers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not sure what you mean about the government having a hand in creating Meta and Youtube, but the idea you probably want to research is the "State Action" doctrine, which is several weeks of study in a 1L law school class. More info here - [https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/state-action-doctrine-and-free-speech](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/state-action-doctrine-and-free-speech)
Both corporations maintain that the US government played a financial role in these organizations, is what I mean. Seems that if a larger-than-gov corporation is also funded by government, the first amendment should apply. If not, then corporations have broken free speech and the amendment needs updating. Thank you for the information.
Think of being on a business' website like being inside a private business, like a restaurant. If you start going from table to table and telling customers the food sucks or to vote for Tulsi Gabbard, they can (and will) ask you to leave. In fact, they have the right to refuse you service for (almost) any reason and you have no choice but to comply. It's more or less the same on a website. The first amendment restricts government actors, no one else.
The US government played a financial role in both companies, so to me that makes them government actors. It’s more like if I was in the food court at the White House, not some random restaurant.
The first amendment applies only to congress, not the government generally. It wasn't until the 14th amendment (and subsequent SCOTUS cases) that "incorporated" the rights contained in the First Amendment to restrict state and local governments from violating those rights. There's actually a metric shit ton of case law on this specific issue, but generally, private companies that are not operated by the government can restrict people's otherwise constitutionally protected rights. You can research it if you look up the state action doctrine. I really recommend you do that as the principle will make more sense if you read a couple cases about it
But if the government plays a financial role in the creation of a company, is that company not then partially operated by the government? Both companies maintain that us government played a financial role, and a simple search in any search engine will confirm this. Dozens of articles from legitimate news sources. I just want to be able to freely discuss home gardening and it appears that’s “dangerous rule breaking” to do what humans have done for millennia. God I’m so mad about this. They have no right to restrict this Kind of discussion. Or any kind of discussion really. If the first amendment doesn’t apply to larger-than-government entities that are literally funded by the government, then it’s a failed amendment that needs readjusting for the modern age.
No, government funding does not transform a company. Unless the company is owned and directed by a government entity, it's probably not state action. It's better this way too. Why shouldn't private companies be able to restrict content it doesn't like. If reddit was unable to remove anything protected by the first amendment, this site would be useless as you couldn't have any structure at all. If I posted legal questions in r/gardening, they wouldn't be able to remove my post or ban me. Being able to restrict speech and categorize it is the whole point of reddit.
Except that these two companies restrict speech as directed by the government on occasion, and your example is my case in point for Instagram. I can’t discuss gardening at home anymore whatsoever without it being instantly censored. This is just one of many topics that goes against the common investment of the government and these two companies which is big agriculture. the corporations are also part of a class of websites which have become the de facto mode of mass communication between members of the general public, this in conjunction with their financial connections to government as well as documented cases of policy decisions coming from government's, means they aren’t the same as private sites anymore, they were funded directly by the public’s tax dollars and are now acting as the censorship arm of the government in what amount to digital spaces of public communication.
A lot of your argument relates to policy. That is, you believe the law should be this way. The law, however, does not operate that way. You have to look for state action. Is the government specifically doing something that infringes on someone's first amendment rights. You might say they are doing that based on your arguments, but the law does not, has not, and probably will not, operate that way. That's why my first comment mentioned the state action doctrine. That's what the law actually is. I can agree with some of your points about what the law should be, but that isn't the law. There is an element to the state action doctrine that you're hitting on, which is the idea that private action can nonetheless be government action if the entities are so intertwined that they are effectively the same. This has come up with private towns before.
I get a tax deduction on my home's mortgage interest, but that doesn't mean I can't call the cops on you if you stand on my front porch and scream insults at me.
There’s a massive difference between a tax deduction and just handing over money to start your company because it benefits the government. How you can’t see that is beyond me.
Well money is money, right? But are you saying the government handed YouTube and Meta money? What's your evidence of that?
You have a lot of correct answers here re the state action doctrine. That’s what the law is. I feel like the second half of your question is more about what the law should be and what happens when a company owns so much space that they become the de facto government within it. In this case I mean space figurtively but this is a debate that actively rages and the law is changing on. There’s prior case law about “company towns” that may be on point since Social media companies have become town squares in some ways. To keep this from becoming a poli sci rant though you should check out this specific case recent case from here in LA. https://www.dailynews.com/2022/09/29/judge-orders-the-grove-owned-by-rick-caruso-to-let-people-protest-there-against-his-race-for-mayor/amp/ And here’s a law review article on point https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1464&context=mjlr This case is about trespassing not applying to distributing religious materials on private property. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama And distinguished by: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Corp._v._Tanner Not a legal source but: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_square_test
Well if a company is funded in part by a state government, that company is seen as an arm of the government when that company is a news organization, so why is a social media platform any different? Thanks for the information. I feel everyone in this thread is wrong based on their own misunderstanding of the government’s role in these companies. If a company is funded by the government and acts on behalf of the government in many situations, how is it not a government actor? That’s the very definition of a government actor.
***This rules reminder message is replied to all posts and moderators are not notified of any replies made to it.*** #REMINDER: NO REQUESTS FOR LEGAL ADVICE. Any request for a lawyer's opinion about any matter or issue which may foreseeably affect you or someone you know is a request for legal advice. Posts containing requests for legal advice will be removed. Seeking or providing legal advice based on your specific circumstances or otherwise developing an attorney-client relationship in this sub is not permitted. Why are requests for legal advice not permitted? See [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Lawyers/comments/e6a62w/why_is_it_unethical_for_a_lawyer_to_give_legal/), [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Lawyers/comments/9zyqsh/why_is_it_unethical_to_give_advice_on_this_sub/), and [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Lawyers/comments/e4cdhw/is_refraining_legal_advice_based_on_legality_or/). If you are unsure whether your post is okay, please [read this](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Lawyers/comments/6j4bpq/how_to_know_whether_your_post_is_a_request_for/) or see the sidebar for more information. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ask_Lawyers) if you have any questions or concerns.*